Archives

Numbered Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Topical Archives Meta discussion Party statements Discussion of decision Discussion of FoFs1 Discussion of FoFs2 New proposals (1) New proposals (2) New proposals (3)

Meta and preliminaries

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.

Archived discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Meta discussion.

Statements

Archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Statements

Discussion

This is the place for the normal discussion that accompanies a proposed decision. This section, to be used once the proposed decision has been posted, is for free-form, threaded discussion, starting new topics in a new section below. No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions. Clicking "new section" above should produce a subsection within this section.

Archived discussions about the decision using the case format can be found at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision/Discussion of decision

General discussion archives can be found at:

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed principles

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed principle" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the principle numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.[reply]

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of FoFs1 and /Discussion of FoFs2

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Finding of fact" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the finding of fact numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please do not discuss remedies here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.[reply]

5 Sockpuppetry in the Climate Change topic area (Scibaby)

I'm broadly satisfied with the way the arbitration seems to be going and I'm very grateful that the arbitrators have devoted a very large amount of time and effort to trying to resolve this complex and entangled dispute.

One area that bothers me, though, is the treatment of Scibaby, which I think is represented in the current proposed finding, to wit:

Since 2006, the articles in the Climate Change topic area have been subject to persistent, repeated insertion of contentious unsourced material as well as other comparatively non-controversial edits by a now-banned editor known as Scibaby, who has created hundreds of accounts. (Long-term abuse report) The pervasive disruption has negatively affected the editing climate within the topic area, and IP editors and those with few edits outside of the topic area are frequently challenged or reverted without comment. In several cases, non-controversial edits made within editing policies and guidelines (e.g., using more neutral language or tone) have resulted in "Scibaby" blocks because a word or phrase has been used by Scibaby in the past, and editors have been threatened with blocking for reinstating otherwise reasonable edits that have been identified as originating from a likely Scibaby sockpuppet. Efforts to reduce Scibaby's impact have had their own deleterious effects, with large IP range blocks preventing new editors from contributing to any area of the project, edit filters having a high "false positive" result, and a significant proportion of accounts (20-40% by current checkuser estimates) blocked as Scibaby subsequently determined to be unrelated. This does not negate the fact that there have been hundreds of accounts correctly identified.

The bolded text doesn't seem correct to me, though historically it may have had some factual basis.

Here's a summary for the month of January:

On January 1, 2010, 5 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. All were confirmed, and all were tagged and blocked by Checkuser J.delanoy.

On January 5, 2010, 8 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. 7 were confirmed by Checkuser Alison, and all 7 of those were tagged, and they were blocked by admin NuclearWarfare. Alison reviewed one of them and decided she had erred in one case. He was unblocked.

On January 7, 2010, 8 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. All were confirmed by Alison and blocked by NuclearWarfare.

On January 8, 2010, 2 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed both and added 1 more. 2 admins blocked them.

On January 9, 2010, 4 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. J.delanoy confirmed and blocked 2 of them.

On January 16, 2010, 3 users and one IP were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. J.delanoy confirmed 2 and they were blocked by NuclearWarfare. Another was found to have a sock which had not been listed, but was not apparently related to Scibaby. Neither of the latter was blocked.

On January 22, 2010, 1 IP and 1 user were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed the user as a sock of Scibaby, and listed 4 other socks she had found. She said "no comment" on the IP. Stephan Schulz blocked all 4 Scibaby socks.

On January 25, 2010, 1 user was listed as a suspected Scibaby sock. Alison confirmed it and suggested that a rangeblock might be appropriate. The user was blocked by Amory, and later Alison applied a rangeblock to 24.205.128.0/19, "as there's very little else other than Scibaby on there."

On Januay 28, 2010, 2 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. Alison confirmed both and added a third. They were blocked by 2 admins.

On January 29, 2010, 1 user was listed as a suspected Scibaby sock. It was confirmed by Alison and blocked by Amory Meltzer.

On January 30, 2010, 1 editor was listed as a suspected scibaby sock. Alison confirmed it and Amory Meltzer blocked it.

On January 31, 2010, 3 editors were listed as suspected Scibaby socks. The admin Prolog blocked 1 as an obvious sock to prevent further disruption, "It's definitely Scibaby." The admin Mastcell blocked another as "an obvious match" with one of the reported suspected socks. Checkuser Luna Santin confirmed all of them and added another. They were all blocked.

This seems to show a pattern of highly reliable sock spotting, confirmed by separate Checkusers. Only one instance of mistaken identification has been detected for the whole month. Assuming this was not some fluke "lucky" month, the data does not corroborate the characterization in the proposed finding.

Could I ask the arbitrators to please take a closer look at this and consult the Checkusers to see if they agree with it? --TS 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also appreciate it if the Arbs could address Tony's question. The 20-40% false-positive rate doesn't agree with my general impression, nor does it agree with Tony's compiled data. I understand that the 20-40% figure includes rangeblocks, and while I agree that overzealous rangeblocks were highly problematic, I think more clarity in this regard would be helpful, because the 20-40% figure can be (and indeed has already been) used as ammunition against the small and shrinking handful of editors who actually handle this prolific sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I looked over the first few months of 2010 a while back, and found the data very much more consistent with Tony's description than with a 20-40% error rate. ArbCom should also be careful to distinguish between wrongly suspected users, and users caught in range blocks, as these are caused by separate processes and peoples. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 Cla68 battlefield conduct

I suggest adding to the findings of fact Cla68's battlefield conduct on the climate change request for enforcement page:

• Tendentious complaint against William M. Connelley, closed as "no case to answer." [1]

• "Notice of formal request to William M. Connelley." Cla68 abused the RfE page, and added unnecessary drama, by first "formally" requesting that WMC cease editing an article[2], and then repeating that "formal request" at the RfE page.[3] Clerk notation: "Cla68, you are free to ask WMC to do anything you like. That does not mean that he has to listen to you, nor does it necessitate a post on this page. If you wish to request enforcement on this matter, please use the standard form at the top of this page to do so."

--ScottyBerg (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed remedies

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed remedy" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the remedy numbering when you create a subsection title here, and please discuss the associated findings in their own sections above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JohnWBarber (remedies)

JWB appears to be the only individual with a battelfield finding of fact without a cooresponding topic ban currently being considered. Is this intentional? As usual, I will respond only to members of AC. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions at: /Discussion of decision#Proposed enforcement

If anyone wants to, just start a new discussion about a specific section of "Proposed enforcement" with the numbering used on the Proposed Decision page, and add the new section here in the same order, rather than at the bottom. Please include the enforcement numbering when you create a subsection title here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Originally proposed by JohnWBarber, modified by me later.[reply]

Archived proposals can be found at /New proposals, /New proposals2 and /New proposals3

Please remember to sign all new proposals made. Alternatives to existing proposals are best posted above in a section discussing that proposal. Please keep all disucssion on-topic to the proposal and don't drift off-topic into discussing other proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC) This replaces the previous discussion.[reply]

Proposed new finding of fact - JohnWBarber

Now that there is an FoF on this editor, can we take off the hat so that it can be seen? Editors may have more to add too since I know I wasn't finished with adding one more to what I added. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC) As per the discussion below I would like finish adding the difs I wanted to add prior to the hatting. [22], [23], [24], and [25]. Thank you for the advice below about adding this here. This is all I am going to say about this matter. I hope the arbitrators will look at the difs provided in this section and make there own decisions as to whether any of them are useful to add to the FoF on the PD page. (Notation: I tried adding the difs and and error message came up and I lost everything, so I tried to give them again.) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial response:

• Shell, you didn't do a good job at looking at the context at all in this diff, [26] (Diff #3) which was followed about half an hour later with discussion on the editor's talk page and an apology from me [27] (for context, I think this is the full talk-page discussion on the editor's talk page [28]; these two short sections [29] [30] on my talk page integrate into that discussion) a bit over an hour later with this diff on that page [31] (see edit summary, I think other changes had been reverted back). I immediately saw I was in the wrong and apologized to Nsaa, although I did want that lead unchanged until the ongoing discussion on the article talk-page was over. You know, Shell, this points to a broader problem: When dealing with KDP and Hipocrite and some other extremely difficult editors such as Active Banana on that page (do you want a dozen diffs on that? two dozen? I can provide them, but perhaps links to the discussions will give the best context), at some point a normal person without superhuman patience will blow off some steam. It matters very much whether (1) the person was goaded, intentionally or unintentionally, by the behavior of others; (2) how rare the occurence is; (3) whether or not the person calms down and either gets back to efforts to come to a consensus or walks away; (4) if the person has been uncivil, whether the person apologizes. These are important considerations that I don't see arbitrators explicitly considering, and so I'm left to wonder whether or not you do consider them. The bottom line here is whether or not the effect of my participation on various pages was to help reach consensus or prevent it,and whether, if I was tending to prevent it or otherwise hurt the process, my actions rose to the level worth ArbCom's consideration). Since you're not looking for punishment but to prevent future bad conduct, you should be clear about whether or not you think some kind of ArbCom sanction is needed to prevent the same or similar conduct from me in the future. I don't have time right now to look through more diffs, but I will. My memory is that I didn't promote a battleground atmosphere, but if any edits show that I did, I'll acknowledge that, apologize and we'll see how much of that promoting there is. In the past, whenever editors I regard as sincere and not looking for a fight have criticized any edit of mine, I've looked into the matter and rectified it if I found any conduct I couldn't defend. That's happened with Jehochman, Franamax and 2/0. (I'll get the diffs and put them here.) You even acknowledge that this may not gain a great deal of support being rather difficult to quantify with diffs. It gets more difficult the more you look into the diffs. If it's difficult to see in the diffs, explanation on this page or on the PD page really is in order.added material starting with the italicized quote and ending here. Forgot to add this before. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Corrected diff at beginning of this post and gave it a number -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Other ArbCom members: I expect that out of fairness you will either refrain from voting until I've made my case or consider your vote tentative until the discussion is over. I expect a bunch of angry editors to post a bunch of diffs (inaccurate and worse than inaccurate), and (as briefly as possible) I will respond to every single one of them, no matter how many there are, no matter how long it takes. If ArbCom members tell me particular diffs are not worth my response, in order to cut down the discussion size, I'm happy to ignore them and focus on what you're interested in.
• It's possible to take anything out of context, and it's possible to find at least minor violations in any editor's contributions history.
• This is a busy weekend for me. I'll be in and out today and tomorrow and have more time for this starting Sunday night. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in the editing of the articles but I feel that an FoF on you is just as important as they are on others who as you way and I quote, "It's possible to take anything out of context, and it's possible to find at least minor violations in any editor's contributions history." I think this also applies to others who have FoF's where you have put difs against them. I'm sorry but you can't have it one way for others and a different way for you. Please, would a arbitrator unhat the above FoF so that difs may be added? John I feel that your behavior on this page has been in battle mode against some editors. This is of course my personal opinion but I think I have the right to present what I've seen and you have the right to dispute it. I'm sorry about this, I have no feelings about you from any previous interactions, though I don't remember any between the two of us. I could be wrong, and if I am, show me a dif of it please, thanks in advance. I think that if some of the difs above are added to the PD page, more support may be of available. Thank you for your time to read this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie, you can add diffs even if it's not unhatted. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Though I think it being unhatted would be better now that there is an FoF on the PD page and Barber is disputing it, I will do that if it becomes necessary. I have like three or four I would like to bring to the arbitrators attention. Thanks for letting me know ScottyBerg, really appreciate knowing. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you I've added them. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. I agree with you about the hatting. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Evidently JWB formerly edited under the account "User:Noroton." That account has a lengthy block record for incivility, edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts that should be included in the FoF. [32] Given this past record, my feeling is that an extensive or indefinite block may be warranted as a remedy. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• His other accounts that he used, I believe there are four not counting this one, should be listed as history of his account like was done with other editors. His account User:CountryDoctor was blocked for multiple accounts, User:Reconsideration was also blocked for multiple accounts, User:Picabu is his account that he uses when on an unsecured computer. He also has another account for the WikiCommons called User:Amg37. That leaves the User:Noroton account which was blocked multiple times for WP:Civil, WP:TE, WP:Disruptive editing, multiple accounts, WP:3RR. Yes, I think this all needs to be addressed. Even though these accounts apparently go back to 2008, what we've seen here now is uncivil behavior, tendentious editing, and disruptive editing. I haven't looked at the block log of his account he now uses, Barber, but I will. I have RL calling me again so I have to go. I agree with ScottyBerg right now but I'll see if I change my mind after some more checking. I hope the arbitrators are also checking. The more eyes the better in my opinion. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick quibble: Reconsideration2 (talk · contribs) is JWB's account for use on public computers, according to his user page. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, you are correct about this, I named the wrong account. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For anyone really interested in my last block: It went to ArbCom because I took it there[33] (the best, quickest summary is in my comment marked "@Coren"). It's worth noting that the blocking admin, VersaGeek, told ArbCom that if she had to do it over again, she wouldn't have blocked me (see second bullet [34]). ArbCom's response was that I should go to an ArbCom subcommittee, WP:AUSC which hemmed and hawed and made me wait months because certain information was private. By the time I got through that, I was too exhausted with the process to take it back to ArbCom and demand that ArbCom, after all they put me through, have the decency to state that the stated reason for the block -- "disruption" -- had no basis in fact. In my exhaustion with the whole thing, I decided that after all, it wouldn't matter -- that no one would bring up such a silly matter against me ever again. Foolish me. ArbCom, you blew it when you had the chance to fix it, and as a result I have Jehochman bringing it up again [35] and again [36] and again, [37] and now ScottyBerg and CrohnieGal. It's a neat way that admins can attack editors: mention the crappy blocks that previous admins foolishly made, but don't look too close. I'd love to see an ArbCom member stick a link to it on the P.D. page. Then ArbCom members could explain why my request for an explanation for the allegation that I was "disruptive" was not worth the admin's or ArbCom's time and then becomes background for a new charge of "disruption" that (at least as yet) hasn't been adequately explained. If you want to go back as far as 2008, in which I was in a dispute with Wikidemon and got blocked for three weeks, you might want to see Wikidemon's latest comment about me. [38] -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's "attacking" you by suggesting that your past block record for disruption, edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts be mentioned in the FoF and that it be taken into consideration in imposing a sanction, if one is implemented. Also, you don't strike me as "exhausted." ScottyBerg (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last sentence seems unnecessarily catty, as he was pretty clearly describing his emotional state at a past time, not the present. It's nothing personal, ScottyBerg, but I think this is one more example of the widespread tendency all around in this dispute for people to take jabs at their opponents instead of really trying to read and understand what they're saying. alanyst ^/talk/ 15:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll admit that last sentence was unnecessary, and I'll strike it. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Battleground language by JohnWBarber here on Lar's talkpage (18 September), putting down editors as being part of a faction. Immediately supported by Lar [39] as he comes straight in and criticises the editor who JohnWBarber has an issue with. Olap the Ogre (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a discussion about the existence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is itself a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND, especially when no names are named, it's a Catch 22. The point was about whether or not it was useful or possible to bring up the idea of factions with regard to the behavior of others. The discussion was about the CC articles, but it was abstract. I brought up WP:BATTLEGROUND both on the evidence page and the workshop page early in this case, and I would have welcomed a further discussion of the policy there. You seem to be saying that it's a violation of policy to discuss the problem of factions in a polite way, even when we're not discussing the actions of individual editors. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Abuse of the climate change enforcement proposed decision case page: his meritless "baiting" complaint against Tony Sidaway [40]. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your link isn't working. Scotty, you brought up the point that it was "meritless" at the time, and I answered you. [41] I showed with specific diffs how Tony's behavior violated specific parts of a specific policy, WP:NPA, and I think there was enough of that going on for it to amount to baiting as well. I can understand how someone else might disagree with that, but I can't understand how someone else would think it's totally "meritless" and some kind of abuse of process for me to complain about it. I'm not going to repeat the answers I gave you in that thread -- it's up to you to read them and reply. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link is working. I meant the "proposed decision" page, not the RfE page. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

• Shell: I looked over your accusation in detail last night, but I'm having trouble understanding part of it. You admit that your finding is "rather difficult to quantify with diffs", and since you brought up things that weren't previously discussed on this page, it's difficult for me to get a handle on just what you're objecting to and how the diffs even relate to your accusation and your additional comment. If you don't provide further explanation, it's hard for me to defend myself: I may be flailing about in discussing specific diffs in ways that don't address your points. The "edit warring" diffs I understand and I can respond to that part, and I can figure out what you're saying in the next four diffs (in article and article talk space) but the four diffs from ArbCom pages puzzle me. You say my comments are far to focused on individual editors. I thought focusing on individual editors was one of the primary reasons for an ArbCom case and so editors naturally focus on them in presenting evidence and arguments for or against sanctioning them. I don't understand how someone can be "far too focused" on that. You say my comments serve to inflame tensions, but even constructive comments on this page will do that as a matter of course, and if politeness isn't the problem, what is? Are you saying that I was making meritless comments not helpful in resolving this case because it was obvious they didn't deal with conduct ArbCom would consider? Or is there something more to it? Please explain. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In general my concern about your participation in this topic area was that you tend to needle other editors rather than engaging in productive discussion. The first diff from the Gore Effect talk page is an excellent example: you were asked to provided references for the point you were making, instead of providing them or addressing the request at all, you simply say That's not a contribution to a discussion. Please answer my questions and start being constructive.. I can't think of a less productive response, not to mention the rudeness involved in blowing off another editor in this manner. In the second diff, editors start to realize that meta-discussion about who does/does not have which consensus isn't helping move things forward and attempt to get the discussion back on track. You continue down the path that several others have already noted is unhelpful with Agree all you want, but Show me where your consensus is and I'll back off. If you can't point out where it is, looks like you don't have it. How difficult can it be? with the edit summary Show me the money. Later in the discussion after editors are concerned that your comments are stonewalling rather than moving towards a consensus, you again repeat your request to be shown a consensus and accuse others of stonewalling instead(third diff). On to another article in the fourth diff, you start off with a snarky but at least constructive discussion about sourcing but once again, can't resist needling another editor with Have your views evolved? Is that it?. The same kind of nasty remarks tend to pepper your comments, making your discussion much less effective and causing more tension in an already tense area. Other gems include This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future, Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments?, There must've been some other vendetta you're talking about, Tony. C'mon, fork it over. .

One final point, it's quite possible to discuss other editors and their behavior in an objective manner - your method of handling things and your tendency to personalize your comments are inappropriate. Shell ^babelfish 19:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That helps me better understand you, Shell. It doesn't help me understand what you think is wrong with this edit. [42] (#10, below) Could you explain your objection to it? Also, I don't think you've looked at some other editors for much worse behavior. Viriditas, for example. Please compare these quotes with what you've quoted from me and tell me how I'm worth a finding of fact and Viriditas isn't. [43] Roger shelved that discussion on September 27. Another thing: I don't understand why you ignore baiting and personal attacks from Tony Sidaway and consider my reaction (which does not include personal attacks) more important. WP:NPA is, after all, policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you tend to needle other editors rather than engaging in productive discussion. No, that's simply not true. I tend to engage in productive discussion, and the vast majority of my edits are just that, either on the CC case pages, over at WP:GSCCRE, in the CC article pages and article talk pages and elsewhere. Even the #10 diff is about productive discussion. And by the way, Shell, you say gems -- that's a bit of needling on your own there, isn't it? Easy to fall into, isn't it, particularly when you're irritated. And unlike me in the discussions your diffs point to, you're under much less pressure in this discussion. I think that under the circumstances of those diffs, my responses are much more understandable than you make them appear. I'll be demonstrating this soon. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• For future reference, this is a copy of the Fof with numbers. I'll refer to the numbers later:

25) JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring (1) [44], (2) [45], (3) [46] and comments that served to inflame tensions and reinforced a battleground mentality (4) [47], (5) [48], (6) [49], (7) [50], (8) [51], (9) [52], (10) [53], (11) [54], (12) [55], (13) [56]. JohnWBarber was formerly known as Noroton (talk · contribs) where he was repeatedly blocked for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts.

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't begrudge John W Barber's right to bring evidence, but I just want to make it plain that I vehemently deny attempting to provoke (bait) him. John, I apologise if my sincere actions ever gave you that impression. --TS 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #12: [57] Shell objects to this sentence Do either of you think you have any credibility left after you post these kinds of comments? This, according to Shell, is an example of nasty remarks [...] causing more tension in an already tense area. The context shows otherwise. Here's a larger excerpt of that comment:

Diff #11: [58] This will be my "I told you so" diff for the future Shell, how is this diff "not productive"? I thought I made an extremely important, productive point: Arbitration enforcement will be gamed, and I'm entitled to my opinion on that. How is it "nasty"? It certainly isn't needling anybody at all. I wanted to say it in a way that would get your attention (sure got it) You don't like it, I get that. Please tell me what's wrong with it, because I don't get that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discretion

I don't know how to do this but I suspect the arbitrators do. Could you just underline the following bit:

Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Just make sure that admins know it's not something you agonize over before applying sanctions (and then only if the user having been warned and advised fails to imrprove) and that the interminable discussion comes after the sanction is imposed. This is a pretty straightforward "no more fucking around" sanction, but in this case I think it might help to make it plain that it's a discretionary affair. --TS 23:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the opposite of giving discretion to admins - you force them to "engage in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators’ noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue", not giving them discretion to act as they think best. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, absolutely not. Read the remedy. There is nothing there about extensive engagement prior to warning or sanctions. It's those who want to reverse the sanction who have to jump the hoops. And quite right too. Of course you don't get to sanction and walk away, you do have to respond to constructive engagement, but if you've got a bit you signed up for it. --TS 23:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reality, the number of discretionary sanctions appealed is low. If there are topic-bans about, the clamour at the boards is reduced considerably.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not really understand how Roger's comment fits this thread...

In reply to Tony: You miss the point (or I did not formulate it well enough). Either you trust the admins, or you don't. Why would you trust them to enact sanctions responsibly, but not to revert them responsibly? In my experience, the more consequential an act is, the less likely it is to be done. The key is not to make sure sanctions stick, the key is to make them lightweight enough that admins actually enact them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only it were that simple. ArbCom has decided otherwise in the past though: [59], [60]. NW (Talk) 02:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new finding of fact: Limits of ArbCom

Just a reminder that per longstanding consensus at Miscellany for Deletion editors may work up drafts in their userspace for the sole purpose of submitting the material as evidence in arbitration cases. However, after the evidence has been submitted and/or the case closes, the sub-pages should be deleted as they are often perceived as attack pages and serve only to memorialise and perpetuate the dispute. Thank you for your understanding,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have posted this...this should be part of the normative arbitration process...anyway to set this in stone?--MONGO 14:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment on the proposed principle. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo (more)

Was Polargeo clearly on one side or the other of a battlegound with respect to CC articles? This is important in whether Polargeo has been promoting a battlegound. The PD has found evidence of minor incivility in the wikipedia talk namespace but has it really found battleground evidence? how can an editor be battleground when they support editors on either side of the supposed battleground? Evidence that Polargeo supports editors on what is percieved to not be "his side" follows e.g. my nearly solo defense of MarkNutley's edits [62], my defense of TheGoodLocust [63] and [64], my request that an enforcement against FellGleaming be thrown out becasue it was not within the remit [65] more to come Olap the Ogre (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh who cares anyway. Arbcom don't seem to deal with reality just the evidence a couple of trolls put in their faces. Olap the Ogre (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ArbCom doesn't mean choosing sides with regard to sceptic versus alarmist viewpoints on AGW, when it says battleground. They literally mean battleground regardless of whether on one issue you supported one group of editors and another issue you supported the other group of editors. Although not relevant, I do think that you were neutral on global warming disputes, as in you were not partisan, per your examples above and your comment on your userpage. The battleground ArbCom are probably referring to is your emotional responses and personalisation of disputes with individual editors eg with Lar and other wikipedians during this ArbCom case. Additionally as you fail to recognise how you contributed to a battleground atmosphere, ArbCom probably will be concerned that your lack of awareness of problems raised leads to concerns that the problems will continue to be repeated. When you were battling with Lar you were attacking yourself moreso than you were Lar, it backfired; accept it, come to terms with it oh and don't go leaving wikipedia, :) you are not the only one who has made mistakes and gotten into fights and disputes. I say this not to criticise you but as someone who has got involved in disputes including one ArbCom case but to make you aware of how I think ArbCom are thinking. If you let go of personalised issues and say yes I did do wrong, I won't do it again, the less likely you are to be sanctioned or the quicker the topic ban will be overturned at a later date. Good luck.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Literaturegeek. Take a break, come back refreshed and ready to ignore anything that seems to be about you. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Skeptic versus alarmist"? Excuse me, but that is unacceptable language. --TS 20:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Overton Window in Wikipedia is nowhere near the clash between true Scientific skepticism and Earth First!, it may strike us as "unacceptable language". But such phrasing is actually fairly "leftist" in such alternative contexts. Ironically. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Tony, probably any descriptive word will offend at least someone on this page. I am not involved in climate change on or off-line, and I am not familar with what people find acceptable or not acceptable. I thought though that many on this dispute feel that we should be alarmed about climate change, where as sceptical editors were of the viewpoint that there is nothing to be alarmed about and it formed part of the dispute. I did not realise offense would be caused and it was not attended. I know there are people who take a more moderate viewpoint. Are you saying you believe there is no need to be alarmed about climate change or your views are moderate? If so how would you prefer to be referred to? Climate change moderate? Maybe if I say, sceptics, moderates and alarmists?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alarmist" is to "Skeptic" as "Denalist" is to "Realist" Hipocrite (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that there aren't alarmists involved in this case. Most of the people here lie fairly square in the middle of the IPCC viewpoint, most consider newspaper articles "problematic" exactly because they are either "alarmist" or "sceptical" leaning, instead of presenting a moderate view. I'll be bold and claim that most editors are rather closer to the viewpoint of Hans von Storch than they are to the viewpoint of James Hansen. (just to cite two fairly known scientists within the field). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, thanks for your views and explaination. Maybe I should refer to editors as those who hold to the IPCC position and those who are sceptical of it? Or maybe I should avoid labeling as best possible. :O) I do agree that newspapers are not good sources for sourcing scientific articles and views etc. I really do think that that promoting this WP:SCIRS to a guideline would be of big benefit to not just climate change articles but other science related articles. It wouldn't resolve BLP and political disputes though.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay so in summary I am being topic banned from climate change and closely related areas not because of any issues with article or article talkpage editing, not because of being on one side or another or promoting a particular POV but just a heated situation involving Lar where I tried to demonstrate that he should not have been acting as uninvolved with respect to WMC and my reaction towards an editor who oddly popped up and called for me to be banned, desysopped and blocked seemingly because I had dared to criticise Lar. I am not trying to say I have always acted impecably. I recognise I have inflamed situations at times but such a major topic ban seems more than extreme and does not in any way address any issues. I would understand an interaction ban but a topic ban makes no sense as I am not a problematic or POV editor on this topic. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bellicose and confrontational pattern in your participation and that is adding fuel to the fire in an already over-heated topic. Roger Davies ^talk 10:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only in a very limited way and in wikipedia namespace therefore a full topic ban still makes no sense. I don't see any similar sanctions regarding Lar who has gone around calling editors a cabal and trying to "level the playing field" etc., attacking other admins for being biased and generally stiring things up and consistantly supporting one "side" against another. If you think my presence is worse then it demonstrates that keeping ones head down on arbcase talkpages pays off. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this case has been going for awhile, and we clerks have been somewhat lax in enforcing the rules here, so some contributors may have forgotten the statement at the top of this talk page: "No word limit, but clerks and arbitrators will moderate excessive, contentious or off-topic discussions." Many of the discussions here are most certainly contentious or off-topic. If you want to discuss anything other than the proposed decisions being made on the project page, please do it elsewhere. Attacking other parties in the case, complaining about the arbitrators, or squabbling over article content is off-topic for this page, and any discussions to that effect will be collapsed by the clerks. Discussions that started on-topic but veer off-topic will also not be spared. Repeat offenders will be asked not to post on this talk page at all. Given the length of this case and the quality of the discourse here, we intend to enforce these rules rather strictly from now on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I want to thank Hypocrite for bring attention to my indiscretions. I must apologies to the Wikipedia community for my ignorance and egregious behavior. War is simply against my principles. Accepting the fate of a martyr, seem to be in them. As well, it's surprising to see so many Battlefield conduct findings proposed for Topic Ban remedies, the effect seems to have chilled down the topic. Sincerely, Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should leave the idea about how to deal with any future abuse (and indead any pages that in some edds eyes are 'naughty') andtick to just the qeustion of users santions. It seems to me that we have now a very large discusionwith nothing that looks like agrement, and does look like aontinuation of the conflicts. We come back to the issue of pages and content when, and if, it turns out sanctions have not workd. We will be able to judge the real scpe and nature of any porbloms and thus will be in a better position to judge hat actions are needed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Par for the course, the Climate Change issue have disrupted every dispute forum Wikipedia has to offer. There must be a better way to address the disputes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing editors lamenting about other editors leaving Wikipedia, and in the spirit of how to improve. I suggest working for content and an editing environment that afford reasonable inclusiveness. Pushing issues to the nebulous realm of the elusive expert with high standards has a place and time; however, when things go to far, I suspect and exclusive environment leads to editors being excluded by their own will or administration action. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to be honest, but what are you saying? --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said it above, what was tempting you to be dishonest? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not getting at you in particular, Zulu Papa 5, but I think we've all been a bit too snarky in this case and the above might sound rather more abrasive than both of you had hoped. --TS 14:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ZuluPapa is well used to editors asking what he means. His comments are often a little off the wall. Olap the Ogre (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me where CrohnieGal is having difficulty. So, I tried to ask (had something to do with honesty, I guess) Apologies for the terseness. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to respond to this so I have asked for some advice. Please be patient so that I understand what I am supposed to have done wrong here. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that ZuluPapa5 comment made little sense because the context for the statement was unclear. The theory is that ZuluPapa5 understands the context of his questionstatement, so it would seem that it is clear to him. I don't see anything wrong or even snarky in Crohnie's question. Bill Huffman (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Zulu Papa 5 * I want to apologize to you if I caused you any distress or hurt your feelings in anyway. If I did, I promise it was unintentional. Again, I'm sorry. Would a clerk or an arbitrator please hat this discussion as it now serves for no useful purpose? Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out this editorial from PLoS Computational Biology Journal, published yesterday, entitled "Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia". While the journal is specifically targeting academic writers, those ten rules apply equally to every other editor in the site. Risker (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... does that mean anyone not editing per those 10 rules is not really a scientist? Or everyone editing to those rules is? Will you please stop hitting me? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the most horrible, wicked thing has been done by Wikipedia to Polargeo, and we all just stood by and watched. This is not acceptable. Experts must not be traduced. --TS 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you mean "Editors must not be traduced", Tony; it's just as unacceptable for traduction to happen to anyone else. I'm mystified, however, how one could think that *anything* that happens on Wikipedia is "the most horrible, wicked thing", although a defamatory edit into a person's BLP with the intention of causing harm would be pretty horrible. Otherwise, I can come up with at least fifty more horrible, wicked things, and it's only been nine minutes since your edit. Risker (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat disagree. Polargeo seemed to take every statement very personally, and therefore was upset by the continual challenges this topic area has had especially recently. It is to bad Polargeo felt unable to continue, but it is not the death of article progress. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, you seem to be saying "other shit exists". It does not do to point at some other calamity and say that the present calamity is therefore minimised. We've lost a bloody good expert. Now try not to let it happen again. --TS 23:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it is unfortunate that Polargeo felt he could no longer continue here, he is not alone in that feeling; we lose editors of varying degrees of personal expertise and ability to follow Wikipedia rules every day. Perhaps you might want to consider that one of the reasons I posted that link was to provide experts with some guidance as to how to best participate in Wikipedia in a manner in which their expertise will be best appreciated, and their frustrations reduced. There are plenty of experts who are simply incapable of editing here because they are unwilling or unable to follow our policies; that is not necessarily a weakness on their part, because our editorial policies are radically different than that found in the academe. I'm not going to say that's necessarily better or worse, but I do know that none of the online collaborative reference sources that have attempted to apply full academic standards have been particularly successful to date. That may well change some day. Risker (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact that as an academic on Wikipedia you get to deal with a neverending stream of Randys from Boise. This is a systematic problem that needs tackling. The fact that this case has been brought and that this page alone is god-knows-how-long shows just how urgent it is. In a university we have student assistants, secretaries &c to screen out the nutjobs, just because our time is too precious to take every last man serious who walks in, claiming to prove that P!=NP. Ignore this advice at your peril. 74.65.111.74 (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've spent a few decades as a tenured professor who had my share of Randys as students. Wikipedia doesn't write for the National Academy; we write for the public. Anyone who is unwilling to try to reach consensus with all comers, well, Citizendium is that-a-way. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good principle that can be devilish to practice. How do we reach consensus with someone who insists that the Peloponnesian War was fought by sword-wielding skeletons or that the current rise in atmospheric CO2 is from natural sources, and absolutely insists on standing their ground? Some editors continually preach "compromise," presumably leading to articles stating that only one side in the war used skeleton mercenaries, or that half of the CO2 rise is from natural sources. The issue is not as simple as some would like for it to appear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For me (and I edit pages where that happens quite a bit), that hasn't been as difficult as you make it sound. When someone comes along, or a lot of someones come along, who believe nonsense, patiently being civil and sticking to source policies works in the long run—it's less a matter of reaching consensus with only the nut-jobs, than reaching consensus with a broader population of involved editors. But what is very problematic in my experience is when long-established editors, ones with lots of FAs and maybe even administrators, are hostile to science or scientists. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realise that, SBHB. However, something that keeps being glossed over is the fact that probably 3/4 of the articles in this topic area are not really about the science itself. They're about the people, about economics, about what Committee A's report said, or what Country C's policy is. Those aren't really science articles, and so scientific accuracy shouldn't normally be a major factor in them, other than to ensure that the sources used are appropriate to the subject of the article and do indeed say what is attributed to them. If, for example, the statement "Environmentalist Joe Blow said xxx is the real cause of yyy", <reference source "Real Newspaper"> then the issue to be discussed is whether or not "Real Newspaper" really says that in the article, whether or not it's a reliable source for quoting Joe Blow, and possibly whether or not Joe Blow is notable enough to (a) have an article or (b) have his quotes included. Arguing over whether or not Joe Blow's statements are scientifically correct is where a lot of people get themselves in to trouble, because that's not particularly relevant except in what the reliable sources have to say about it. Risker (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I concede the point. After all WP:COATRACK is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Risker means what you seem to think she means here. This is not an excuse to create coatracks, but it means that we don't get to exclude quotes from newspapers because they are not scientific journals. Horologium (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Horologium, I think you've got me right. Biographies aren't science articles. Economics articles aren't science articles. Arguing about whether or not any opinions on science in those articles is "scientifically sound", and including those arguments in the article by using sources that do not directly discuss the subject of the article, is what makes a coatrack. Now, maybe it's just me, but I suspect if those with scientific expertise were to focus their "is it good science" arguments to the pages that really are focused on the science, they'd probably find this entire topic area to be much less stressful. It has to be exhausting to continue the same arguments page after page after page, especially when it's unrelated to the actual content of the page. Risker (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to assume that you simply don't recognize the tone of your last two sentences and that it isn't deliberate. Presuming to tell others how they must feel is deeply patronizing. I'll take that as my cue to exit stage right. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It almost seems like people don't realise that scholarly sources exist for topics that aren't science. Arguments keep popping up along the lines of "use peer reviewed sources for science, but not for the stuff that's not science". My social norms are those of science, and yet even I can see that scholarly study and peer review are not solely the purview of the sciences. High quality sources are more useful that crappy sources. That's not discipline specific. Guettarda (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, are you really saying that factual accuracy isn't important, that it's OK to mislead readers if we're reporting on a source that misleads readers? Your argument here seems to be in direct conflict with your votes on proposed principles 9-11 (and the policies underlying those principles). Biographies aren't science articles. Economics articles aren't science articles is simply a red herring. If a newspaper article gets it wrong, we don't use it as a source (at least not without explaining how it got the facts wrong). That's true in science articles. It's true in economics articles. It's especially true in biographies. We hold biographies to an especially high standard because of the potential damage that inaccurate reporting can have on a person's reputation. And yet, you're arguing that factual accuracy matters less in a biography than in a science article? I'm sorry Risker, but you couldn't be more wrong. Guettarda (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. Perhaps this is the real heart of the problem: a failure to understand each other. Guettarda, if Reference A quotes Person B as saying "I believe the evidence shows C", then the only thing to argue about is whether or not Reference A got the quote right. There's no place for arguing about what the evidence really shows, because it is irrelevant to Person B's quote. If you can find Reference D that specifically says "Person B got it wrong" (and yes, it needs to say "Person B") then Reference D has a place in the article as long as Reference A (the actual quote) is in the article. At the very most, it *might* be appropriate to add a sentence saying "this does not accord with current <topic area> expert consensus", wikilinking to the article that describes current <topic area> expert consensus. And if you know that Person B's belief is wrong, but nobody thinks he's important enough to refute, then the next question is why Person B's opinion is notable enough to even include in the article. I'd give one of the examples I'm aware of where a person has made a public, quoted statement about climate change that is completely non-notable, but given the behaviour I've seen in this topic area, I'm too concerned that the next edit war would be to try and put it in to that BLP. Risker (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial decisions are not made in a vacuum. The scientific accuracy of quotes made can weigh on the whether quotes are deemed worthy of inclusion or are just serving as a coatrack. In terms of the reliability of the source, Risker, you're right that the only standard for the reliability is whether the quote is accurate. But relevance is measured not against reliability but rather editorial purpose and "encyclopedicity". Yesterday, I removed a paragraph-long quote from an article about a skeptic that I'm sure was an accurate quote made by the skeptic. It didn't belong in the article because it was cherry-picked from literally thousands of verifiable quotes to state something that was dramatically opposed to scientific reality AND it was not noticed by third-party sources. It was the classic coatrack and the editor who added it I'm sure would have hid behind the argument you're making if he hadn't left the topic area. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, with respect, SA, you were wrong to remove that paragraph. WP is not censored, and that means that it will include views you consider wrong, or indeed offensive. This was her biography, and if she is notable enough to have one, our readers have a right to read what she says in RS publications (even if uncontradicted in other reliable sources). Of course, our readers also have the right to have accurate information in the article on the e-mail controversy she was commenting on. The findings we report there, arrived at by far more qualified people than her, differ quite sharply from her assessment. We leave it to our readers to make up their minds.

Speaking more generally, I note that even now, more than three months into this arbitration, the relevant editors aiming to present the mainstream view in Wikipedia still don't seem to realise how much goodwill they have lost within the community by their BLP editing and sourcing practices. I am for privileging scientific sources where they are available. I generally take a dim view of press sources. I think the Global warming article is a fine FA. But I am dismayed that no one so far here has put their hand up and said "Sorry!" about their BLP editing. Until and unless that happens, I would recommend casting a wider net for BLP topic bans, to encompass any editors who are clearly unrepentant about their BLP editing style. And I would add that this editing style, which seems to be motivated by fear, is self-defeating. No one who wants to get the scientific consensus across clearly to our readers should support it, because it puts the on-Wikipedia proponents of the mainstream consensus in a very poor light indeed.

People who feel threatened by dissent make the strength of their own position appear weaker than it is. The scientific consensus on climate change is overwhelming. 97% of the people who have any expertise in the matter agree on it. All we need to do is to get that across, and we do. As the saying goes, "Dogs will bark, but the caravan moves on." There is no need to waste time telling the dogs to be quiet. (I am not likening anyone to dogs here, just using the language of the simile.) It is far more profitable to spend that time working together to make the coverage of the scientific consensus even better, clearer, easier to read, easier to understand, better sourced. --JN466 12:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous. Unless a third-party has noticed this quote and commented, or it's uniquely suited to illustrate a point that is central to her biography, it's not at all relevant to our encyclopedia any more than the literally thousands of other quotes we could have chosen. Should we also include her directions for making a bottle rocket in her biography [69]? Of course not. We are entrusted to make editorial decisions for the encyclopedia. WP:BLP is not a green-light to produce an indiscriminate collection of quotes. WP:V is a standard for inclusion: not exclusion. We will continue to exclude irrelevant points or cherry-picked coatracks because that's our role as encyclopedia editors. People who don't understand that shouldn't really be editing, IMHO.ScienceApologist (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To bring this back to the proposed decision, Due Weight applies to biographical articles too. It is not by itself a BLP violation to restore due weight to a biography, nor to remove unreferenced or badly referenced peacock terms. Cardamon (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::Well I'm not a scientist at all and reading this brings me to one question that I find confusing since an arbitrator brought this to our attentions. If scientist are important to help Wikipedia than why are there so many of them on the PD page be considered to be unable to add to CC articles? I don't understand. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarked, thanks Risker. Rule 1 - mehh. I've seen sooo many good IP contributions to science/biomed articles, I just read the changes without pre-judgement. Now if you want to build your name then of course register an account. Rule 2 - correct as far as learning the pillars but lacking in the exhortation to not spew them out ad nauseam as TLA's and instead to support your proposed changes with bottom-up reasoning. It all looks like pretty sound advice and I hope to deploy the link in future. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite good. I assume most regulars here have experience with someone in another venue "explaining" Wikipedia. Some are atrocious, some are decent, but even in the better ones, it is easy to find fault. Knowing this community, I'm sure some can find some fault with some of the points, but only at the margins. While it was specifically targeted at academics, I plan to save it as a useful link. Good advice for most new editors.--SPhilbrickT 00:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good article. Back to basics, something many of us seem to forget from time to time. I see Hipocrite is back -- welcome back Hipocrite. Minor4th 01:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not a bad introduction (and not surprising, assuming that Magnus Manske is our Magnus Manske) I'm not sure what this has to offer existing editors. It's sort of like saying "there's an edit button on each page' - surely, for anyone editing here for a while, it's as obvious as sunrise. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious, maybe. Easy to forget, definitely; that some only pay lip service to some of the ideas in that article -- absolutely. Reminds me of "The Gods of the Copybook Headings". [70] The second paragraphs of Rules 8 & 9 seem especially worth reviewing: Expertise gives you no privileges; mainsream science is only a part of the beliefs that we cover. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. The issue is how we cover MSS when non-MSS beliefs come into conflict with it, which is, as far as I can tell, a 24/7 problem, which is why we need to rely on the best sources we can find. Guettarda happens to be right on this particular issue, but what she may or may not understand, is that Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not place any value on accuracy. Viriditas (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we demand that experts play by our rules, which is fair. The problem is that it's a one-way street - even when experts play by our rules, their expertise is accorded basically zero value by the community. I can name a number of editors with real-world expertise who never trumpet it, who keep a low profile, and who plug away civilly, citing sources and improving content. In some cases, the only indication of their real-world expertise is the quality of their contributions. These people, as a rule, get little or no support when they run into difficult, agenda-driven, or obstructive editors. I agree that experts should not demand any special privileges, but it pains me to see how little respect the community returns to those experts who contribute constructively here.

Most experts are skilled in communicating their subject matter to laypeople, but that's not the skill set you need here. You need to be able to calmly explain your subject matter to a seemingly endless stream of editors who are deeply and personally vested in an opposing viewpoint. That's why I generally don't recommend that experts contribute here, unless they have the patience of a saint or are willing to avoid controversial areas ("controversial" in this case being defined as areas in which a committed Internet-using contingent opposes the current understanding of a topic, not areas which are genuinely scientifically controversial - those are generally surprisingly calm). MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These people, as a rule, get little or no support when they run into difficult, agenda-driven, or obstructive editors. And that's true for us all, as I've been saying, ad nauseum for years. I generally don't recommend that experts contribute here, unless they have the patience of a saint or are willing to avoid controversial areas. Again, this applies to anybody. Its a systemic problem at Wikipedia, and it doesn't look like it can be fixed. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree MastCell, I am not saying this to annoy you and I hope you don't take it that way. :) Experts do get help, but they have to ask for it to receive it. If an expert posts for help on noticeboards such as WP:FRINGE or WP:MED etc they usually get several people who will come to their aid if they are dealing with a problematic editor or editors. A large chunk of the climate change disputes were to do with BLPs and political scandal or lack of scandal, rather than on disputes over what the peer reviewed literature says. One of the main reasons that drew me to recommend that ArbCom take this case was the BLP violations, which had little to do with expertise or science but rather looked like agenda driven editing. I couldn't help but wonder if some of the editors involved were trying to disparage BLPs with the hope that journalists would be influenced by what is written in wikipedia articles, i.e. political campaigning, righting a great wrong etc. I must say on BLP articles overall, it was the "sceptical" editors who were the least problematic, although I did see a couple of BLP articles where the sceptical editors were causing the most problems. Anyway regardless of motives, subjects in BLP articles are real life people, with feelings and families and friends and the community consensus is that BLP policy need to be respected. I am not alone in my concerns; from following comments by uninvolved editors on noticeboards and during the case itself the BLP issue is what has the community most concerned as well as the constant uncivil environment. The community will turn against people regardless of their academic credentials if they do not respect WP:BLP and other policies. I really see people trying to right great wrongs on both sides (sceptical and alarmist) of the various climate change disputes. What is needed, and I hope ArbCom case will achieve this, is an editing environment where people are going to fairly represent what the peer reviewed literature is currently saying, per WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and where editors will respect WP:BLP.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weight and barely notable views

This brings up a crucial area of dispute, and one where principles should be clarified in the decision. As the PLoS article item 9 states, "When writing about complex issues, try to cover all significant viewpoints and afford each with due weight, but not equal weight. For example, an article on a scientific controversy should describe both the scientific consensus and significant fringe theories, but not in the same depth or in a manner suggesting these viewpoints are equally held."
We've seen BLPs and articles on books being used to present fringe views in isolation from the scientific consensus, when the fringe view of the book or person hasn't attracted mainstream rebuttal in a reliable source.
Risker's comment above at 06:22, 2 October 2010, proposes "At the very most, it *might* be appropriate to add a sentence saying "this does not accord with current <topic area> expert consensus", wikilinking to the article that describes current <topic area> expert consensus. And if you know that Person B's belief is wrong, but nobody thinks he's important enough to refute, then the next question is why Person B's opinion is notable enough to even include in the article."
The problem arises when proponents of political views provide reliably sourced notability to the fringe scientific views, but there's a lack of well sourced scientific opinion on the topic. As seen with the Tim Ball article, mere promotion of fringe views can be seen as sufficient notability. The idea of keeping disputes out of biographies has merit, so that properly sourced balance can be shown without giving undue weight or "equal validity" to fringe views. A similar problem arises with books like The Hockey Stick Illusion. Clarification of how to deal with this tension between syn and weight will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 09:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We present fringe views in articles on their proponents. If there are mainstream comments on these fringe views, we present these, too, and every effort should be made to find some. But if there aren't any suitable mainstream RS rebutting the fringe view, then that is just how the cookie crumbles. Where fringe views comment on science topics, these will be wikilinked, and we'll then have to rely on our article on the science topic to communicate to the reader just how far removed from the mainstream the fringe view is. --JN466 13:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, your approach is to ignore WP:WEIGHT and, where applicable, WP:FRINGE in articles on proponents of tiny minority or fringe views, in cases where these minority views have not attracted mainstream attention with particular reference to that proponent. Misleading readers who don't follow links to other articles is not NPOV, and makes such articles particularly prone to coatracking promotion of the fringe views. A similar problem arises with fringe complaints about proponents of mainstream views, these should not be given undue weight in BLPs. If that's how the cookie crumbles, then disputes are likely to continue. . . dave souza, talk 16:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If readers can't be botherd to read linked artciels thats not our fault. We are not misleading them, far from it we are offering them the information they are just not accepting the offer. I would also say that is an applaing and condesending attitude to people who use Wiki. Moreover I find the blatnat interlectual black mail (gives us what we want or we will take our expertise with us) frustating and quite frankly offensive. It sws a battle ground mentality wholey out of keepiing with the priciples that wiki is supposed to be about.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. Nothing there about "a link to an article covering the majority view will suffice", which seems to be your proposal. Probably better to remove fringe promotion coatracked onto BLPs, keeping it in linked articles about the fringe topic. Each article should be clear in itself without having to follow links to other articles for explanation, that's basic good writing.
Slatersteven, it's not the topic of this subsection but I'll note that Wikipedia has always valued expert contributions which comply with policies, making life difficult for expert editors damages article content and damages the primary aim of Wikipedia. Everyone should comply with the five pillars. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Dave, the example I had in mind was what ScienceApologist deleted here. She said it, she said it in a reliable source -- Australian Broadcasting Corporation -- and if those are the views she holds, our readers have a right to know. If a notable politician/book states, in print, the belief that early humans cohabited with dinosaurs, then we don't delete it from the biography/the article on the book because it is a fringe view. We may delete it for other reasons, but not for that one. --JN466 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good example, as that's Nova presenting an inaccurate attack on living persons: if it belongs anywhere, it belongs on the article on the linked controversy in the context of other views. However, as SA notes, this was being used as a coatrack. Her views on this don't appear to be particularly notable or significant – she's not a topic expert. She does clearly have fringe views on the science of climate change, and the article shows these views without being clear that they're minority views, so improvement needed. . dave souza, talk 19:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, we have thousands of BLPs mentioning the personal views of the BLP subjects. I might agree that in this BLP her views on climate change formed perhaps an excessively large part of the article overall. However, I reject the view that we must not cover a BLP subject's fringe views in their biography, or that we have to flit from BLP to BLP to "correct" BLP subjects' erroneous views with the mainstream scientific viewpoint. These are biographies: they are about people, including their views, some of which may be smart, and some of which may be misguided. We don't start arguing with them in their biographies. --JN466 19:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that way, you should really work to build consensus to change our sourcing policy. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have more work to do there than me. If Chap X says, I believe God made the Earth on Friday the 22nd of July 4352 BC, you don't go and cite Darwin to refute him, or even worse, cite the blog of a geologist who can't stand Chap X. --JN466 19:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Chap X is a creationist who has verifiably written or said tens of thousands of words and in a one thousand word biography you cite a one hundred work paragraph about his comments about a bunch of emails written by the NCSE, you better believe "coatrack" is going to be called and unless there is verifiably notice of that particular paragraph or sentiment, the editorially-sound decision is probably going to be to excise it. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)It's also coatracking. We can't dedicate 1/4 of an article to something someone said that's pretty peripheral to their career. Read the article as it was before SA deleted that para and you'd think that the most notable thing Nova did was open on the email issue. When, in fact, that only reason anyone cares about her opinion is because she is known (to some extent) as a science writer. But you see this with every "climate skeptic" - their articles are basically used to promote a fringe view. Some people (Tim Ball, PZ Myers) are primarily known for their views (though you could also argue that Myers is notable in the way he has used blogging to present those views), and much less for their professional achievements. For others, like Nova or Judith Curry, their primary notability is for their professional achievements, and their opining is less notable, but subject to much more buz in the blogosphere. So dedicating such a large chunk of their bio to a topic like that is unbalancing, and creates a distorted view of them. And creates problems both of WP:WEIGHT and, in the case of living people, WP:BLP. (Note that this is not the same as people like Singer and Seitz, where substantial scholarly coverage has been dedicated to their "contrarian" positions. This is something that's supported by "a [as in one] reliable source".) Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. I have already conceded that perhaps too large a part of her bio was about her climate change views. When I looked at the diff, it was less apparent. --JN466 19:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)However, sometimes a very minor part of an individuals career may be that on which their notability hangs - my non science example is A. E. Housman, a contemporary authority on writers of antiquity and in a couple of cases still the major source - and who published in his lifetime two fairly slim volumes of poetry. Regardless of the mans academic achievements and standing, the person is best recognised as the author of A Shropshire Lad, and Last Poems. It is not always undue to concentrate on one or two minor aspects of a persons entire output, because it is what is notable (via reliable third party sources) that determines the presentation of the article on a subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, LHvU. Reliable third party sources, and indeed Vaughan Williams, testify to the notability of Housman's poetry. No third party source seems to have commented on Nova's fringe views about mainstream scientists whose emails she misinterprets, so her comments cannot be said to be significant to her bio – at most, they might be cited in the article on the topic as an example of fringe views. Having them in her bio is purely a coatrack to show these views divorced from mainstream views on the topic. . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If she is a science reporter then surley her views on a scientific matter are notable? Its whats shes paid to talk about.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Her views could potentially be significant to the scientific matter topic, in which case they might appear in the article on the scientific topic, where they would be given due weight in the context of other views on the subject. However, we'd need a secondary source to show that the views are significant to herself. Cherrypicking her views on another topic is both coatracking to present that topic without mainstream context, and original research in choosing which parts of her output are significant to her bio. . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a secondary source that refers to her article in The Drum, which the deleted quote was taken from: [71]. Other secondary sources referring to her climate change activism: [72] (which also puts her Internet activism in context, in relation to the scientific consensus), [73]. The majority of news references to her refer to her views on climate change. --JN466 14:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific there about the subject of the section that was removed, the first gives her a passing mention in an article about journalistic standards at ABC, the others seem to be opinion pieces in The Australian and other promoters of fringe views, including blogs, putting the viewpoint that she expresses views on climate change. That's more than covered in the current bio, independent third party sources would be better. For weight, we should have a source noting the mainstream view of any content in her bio, or it becomes a coatrack and a POV fork. . . dave souza, talk 14:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a source discussing the mainstream view in the context of her views then fine. However it would generally be inappropriate to note the mainstream view based on unrelated reliable sources which don't concern her or her views Nil Einne (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nil Einne here. --JN466 17:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why showing her fringe views of a topic automatically becomes a coatrack POV fork in the absence of a mainstream source that specifically mentions her views, unless there's a generic a statement making it clear that hers are minority views in terms of science, as suggested above by Risker. Which means that the best way to deal with it may be a brief statement that she disagrees with mainstream views shown at [link]. Unless the arbiters set a principle for such cases, these arguments will continue. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these arguments will continue. I don't think we really disagree that much at heart though -- it is just a question of weighting. To me, in a BLP, it matters more that we describe the person, including their views. I see that as a description of the person, not the things they are talking about. So if we mention in a BLP that someone believes in UFOs, or ancient astronaut theories, or that homosexuals are of the devil, I don't see the need to add that the mainstream consensus is that there aren't any UFOs, or ancient astronauts, etc., unless reliable sources have bothered to comment. With more notable commentators (I mean the BLP subjects), such sources will always be available; even with Nova one of the articles I found would provide enough material to locate her in relation to the scientific mainstream. But where BLP subjects' views haven't elicited third-party comment, I am happy to leave them unanswered, as otherwise we as Wikipedians are inserting ourselves, starting a debate in a BLP that has not taken place in reliable sources.

None of what I have said here should be read to apply to BLP subjects' self-published sources. In other words, if the BLP subject writes something uncomplimentary about another living person in a self-published source, then we should not normally reproduce it, per WP:SPS. In Nova's case though, her article was reliably published, which makes it fair game for inclusion. And yes, you can then still have a talk page discussion about whether it is due weight or not to include it. --JN466 20:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused here by what's were discussing. But I think I largely agree with Jayen466. Note in particular if someone's views are primarily coming self published sources then this isn't a good thing either even if these aren't concerning living people. These should be kept to a minimum if used at all. It's very easy to cherry pick things someone once said somewhere to make them look stupid and this is a constant problem on BLPs.

Now if their views have received significant coverage in other reliable sources it's not generally our place to exclude them simply because some may feel the reliable source failed to make it clear their views are in a minority. It can actually be a problem with particularly notable people too even when we do restrict ourselves to things covered in other sources that it's easy to cherry pick things to make them look bad so I'm not suggesting every single thing they've ever said that has been covered belongs in the article. However the primary considerations should be things like how much coverage did these receive, particularly long after they were said if that's possible, are these relevant to their notability etc, not whether there has been sufficient comparison to the mainstream.

As Jayen466 has said, it's also usually unnecessary to give undue emphasis to how their views are not in the mainstream, ultimately we have to give the reader a bit of credit an expect them to understand that in an article on a person, it isn't going to go in to depth about how their views compare to the mainstream. It may of course be appropriate to mention in some cases although I think the general coverage of the article would often be sufficient, it's not necessary to explain how every single one of their views aren't mainstream if it's clear their views are generally not in the mainstream.

In any case, I find it hard to believe this is really going to be much of a problem in the climate change area. Most coverage tends to be along the lines of how a climate change sceptic says the mainstream is wrong or whatever.

There is IMHO a bigger problem with people with fringe or pseudoscientific views in areas unrelated to climate change where no one has really paid much attention to whatever this person is saying but it happened to get picked up by some reliable source without much commentary and where it's obscure enough that it will be difficult for the reader to understand how their views fit in to the mainstream even if we had articles (which we probably don't).

P.S. I perhaps should emphasise since I'm not sure if my earlier point was clear enough that if another source hasn't said someone's view is not mainstream for us to say their view isn't mainstream as shown in article wikilink would almost definitely be a case of WP:Syn and is extremely bad practice in a WP:BLP.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific example being cited was being used to replicate a person's fringe views without any third party source or analysis.[74] The article thus became a platform for repetition of fringe views without the context required by weight. As stated at the top, Risker suggested a reasonable approach to such issues. . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question is something on which the Committee has demonstrated its competence and wisdom in the past. In view of the amount of confusion here, would the arbitrators think it worthwhile to adopt Risker's suggestion and refine it into a principle in this case? The issue of minor biographies being used to propagate disputed material is one on which many editors have expressed concern. --TS 11:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)It is possible to describe a person's views in encyclopedic detail without resorting to coatracks and quote mines. Not every opinion a person offers is necessarily relevant to their biography. These are pretty standard editorial discussion points. No one is arguing that we should somehow prevent readers from knowing the notable positions of notable persons. It is reasonable, however, to sometimes drastically edit or even cull commentary that lack prominence with respect to the biographical subject. I've been sensing a lot in these discussions about BLPs a sort of knee-jerk response on the part of some editors who argue that removing verified prose or quotes is somehow automatically a violation of Wikipedia standards. This attitude is extremely unhelpful. The meat and potatoes of this collaboration is working out how best to summarize, paraphrase, strategically quote, and encyclopedicly cover topics. If the attitude shifts to one of, "you can't remove anything that is verifiable" we cease becoming a collaborative encyclopedia and instead become an arbitrary open source data dump. ScienceApologist (talk) 11:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, and with Nil Einne's point above about cherry-picking. I am just concerned that it seems we are basing our selection of which quotes to expunge on whether a BLP subject's view is fringe or mainstream. That should really not feature in our deliberations. --JN466 12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, the demarcation of a biographical subject's views has to be a consideration sometimes. WP:FRINGE shares interstitial space with WP:UNDUE and WP:GNG. To that end, it is entirely appropriate to consider the content of the comment when deciding how to handle it. I'm not saying we censor fringe views preferentially or punitively. All I'm saying is that when a fringe advocate takes it upon themselves to make full-throated advocacy of a certain idea and is used in the media as a strawman stand-in for an opinion that is absent among experts, Wikipedia shouldn't be including significant amounts of their unilluminated commentary. Paraphrasing, judicious quoting, and sourced analysis is far more useful and encyclopedic than a long quote with dozens of factual claims of dubious significance. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms [75] I do agree what was removed was problematic. Firstly it's not so much a science issue here. But it is a BLP one to some extent as although she didn't refer to anyone by name the people she is referring to is clear to anyone familiar with the case and is a small number of people. Second it's rather long and out of proportion to the article as a whole. Finally and the biggest problem here is there's little evidence of the notability of her views. Her views are taken direct from her opinion piece. While [76] does mention the story, it doesn't really mention her views at all and not what we were quoting. (It also wasn't used as a source at the time.) In other words, there's no real reason why we should quote what we did instead of "The House of Commons committee was surely supposed to be protecting the citizens......." or anything else she said in that piece.

In other words this specific issue actually had BLP issues both ways.

In case there is any confusion here I should clarify here that when I said we need coverage of someones views in reliable secondary sources, I meant just that. I didn't mean their views were in opinion piece or whatever, even if that piece happens to be published in a reliable secondary source. From my POV, when several sources are covering someones views it's often appropriate for us to as well. Even more so if these sources are primarily covering these views as opposed to just quoting a bunch of different views from different people (or from that person), which would usually imply these specific views on have achieved a high amount of prominence for whatever reason. Most of the time, this coverage will include some criticism of these views as well, in fact that's often the reason someones views receive so much prominence and it will usually be appropriate to include this criticism (although how much is usually a tricky issue). Of course this doesn't mean we quote everything someone has said that's been covered, that clearly doesn't work for say Barack Obama or Ann Coulter. Or even Bowe Bergdahl (these was plenty of coverage of the tape released after he was captured, as I argued in the talk page we could probably include the whole tape).

Anyway I'm starting to repeat myself and think I've explained myself well enough and this is somewhat getting off topic anyway so I'll leave it at that.

I'll just make one final comment on the general issue and perhaps my most important point and message to arbcom. If arbcom is seriously considering proposing that we analyse a persons views and even if no source says their views aren't mainstream, if we feel they aren't, we note it and refer them to the article on the mainstream view this would cause grave concern to me as I've already expressed and I think other BLP editors. I would suggest instead great guidance on when to include views. It would IMO be far better to exclude someone's views then an ORry mention they aren't mainstream without sources.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've made valid points here. I like your idea of not quoting RS-published opinion pieces in the author's BLPs, unless the views expressed have actually been discussed by third-party RS; it fits with the particular scenario we are dealing with here. You're quite right about the OR-ish, cherry-picking aspect of it, which is not unlike a Wikipedian picking primary source quotes from a writer's output according to their own preferences/pet hates. On the other hand, I am not sure this idea would fly if we brought it up, say, on the WP:IRS talk page. What do you think? We could give it a try. --JN466 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball was proposed as a test deletion to see if other climate change BLPs could be deleted. While I am not a particularly strong inclusionist, kind of in the middle, the closure of this article for deletion has left me concerned. There were 5 votes (if you include the nominator WMC) for deleting and 12 votes to keep. An ArbCom clerk, over-ruled the community and closed it as a vote to delete. While deletion policy does say that the decision is not simply down to a head count the policy clearly states,Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, that

"These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so."

"The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept."

I won't lose any sleep over the deletion of the BLP, that is not the issue; I will leave it to someone else to appeal if they would like the article undeleted. I am not advocating for this admin to be sanctioned at all either, but I would like ArbCom to resolve devisive policy violations with regard to climate change by its clerks (which I assume were done in good faith) as it is potentially going to lead to a deterioration in the community's trust in ArbCom who are voting on remedies as I am sure this clerk would have some personal email interaction with some ArbCom members. I think ArbCom need to be as disassociated (sp?) from this dispute as possible both in commentary and actions including its clerks. BLP issues are at the core of this case and the issue which I feel most concerns the community.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny - I knew it had to be NW who closed as delete even before looking at the thread. The close was against consensus but it looks like it might have also been against policy and guidelines -- although Ball may have been marginal on WP:PROF, he clearly met WP:GNG. Like the OP mentions the close was even more contrary to consensus when you give additional weigh to the uninvolved editors participating in the discussion.Minor4th 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NW was also the admin who blocked Mark Nutley for upholding BLP policy. I'm really sorry, but I'd feel more comfortable if NW ceased to perform admin actions in this field. --JN466 00:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to get NW to see reason and get an explaination from him on his talk page. I was not aware of past accusations of misuse of admin tools. One thing is for sure, there is never a dull moment in the climate change battleground. Maybe the BBC should make a soap opera out of it and replace EastEnders. If you are not involved in the battleground it is at times entertaining to follow (which is partly why I started following it in the first place, better than reading the newspaper). :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision/New_proposals2#Proposed_FoF:_NuclearWarfare_has_failed_to_uphold_BLP_policy_in_the_manner_expected_of_an_administrator. Cla68 and Lar, among others, have previously expressed concerns about NW's status as an uninvolved admin. --JN466 01:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally (speaking only for myself, and I'm recused)... I have no problem with NW's actions here. SirFozzie (talk) 04:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are recused, should you not then refrain from offering your opinion? I myself, while not complaining or accusing, am baffled by the decision. --Yopienso (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recused from the decision that is being rendered by ArbCom, but I can still comment in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So to clarify, you are still able to view off-wiki discussions in relation to this case? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for your view SirFozzie. Your comment was indented, so I assume you were talking to JN's linked allegation? Or were you addressing my original comment?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View, yes. Participate, no. It would be, extremely hard, if not impossible to come up with sub lists for every separate case or discussion that arises on the ArbCom-L. (for example, I'm recused on CC, Shell is recused on EEML-issues, so on and so forth). We'd have about 10-12 sublists depending on what case or cases being discussed. Talk about your email nightmare! Since I'd pretty much not be able to sit by and not comment, I pretty much archive/delete the discussions on this case sight unseen. If I had any ability to influence the decision here, I think most of the parties here know what my reaction and decision would be.

As for your question, Literaturegeek, I found his close to be within Wikipedia's policies and the discretion we grant administrators in closing AfD's (in that it is NOT a nose-counting exercise, but the closing administrator is to take the weight of the arguments and the requisite policies into their consideration on closing it.) Also, while I have the bully pulpit, may I state that I find it.. frustrating, let's say.. that's a good word, that the default action for BOTH sides in this case is to go after administrators, trying to get them declared "involved" to run them off of working in the area. If you question NW's close, the proper way to deal with things is to take the decision to Deletion Review, not attempt to have him thrown out of the area. This is something that happens on BOTH sides of the table (No matter what the label you put on them). I'm beginning to get the feeling that the sides are hoping for an administrator-free utopia, where every administrator who has the intestinal fortitude to make a decision the entrenched forces do not like, gets disqualified for being "Involved". SirFozzie (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SirFozzie, I quoted policy above and it is clear that there needs to be a consensus to delete, therefore the headcount is referring to if there is a majority viewpoint to delete but the viewpoints are weak then the article is kept. How can this part of policy "Therefore, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept." mean that the page should be deleted? I appreciate your criticism of myself, and since I have given criticism I am happy to receive criticism. Although you probably won't be surprised that I do not accept your criticisms. Firsly because I do not think you are accurately interpreting policy on deletions and secondly because I clearly said that I do not want ArbCom to sanction NW. What I was hoping for is some ArbCom members quietly saying, please be more careful in admin decisions especially while the case is ongoing. How can "I do not want NW sanctioned", be interpreted as I want a remedy saying he is involved? Infact I have never advocated for anyone to be sanctioned. Perhaps going to deletion review would have been more appropriate and I can accept that criticism but I did not go to deletion review because I have never used it before and two because the issue was not that the article was deleted but rather I felt that NW had misused his position as admin with regard to the climate change dispute.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately some of the worst culprits at getting admins pushed away from the topic area are those admins who managed to establish themselves at CCRFE. It appears a certain defence of territory has been going on. e.g. NW, your warning is misplaced. I'm starting to wonder if you're not gradually drifting into WMC's faction, as your recent actions have been more and more one sided - Lar 21 Aug 2010, A dig at a conversation between NW and WMC - Lar 5 September, Lar backs up Minor4ths criticism of NW's partisanship with I think that last bit is a fair question, NW - Lar 27 August, By the way, are you recallable as an admin? - Lar to NW 23 August 2010 and Vsmith is not an uninvolved admin (although he appears to be an admin, he's not uninvolved under the ArbCom definition), wouldn't you agree? - a fairly poor remark about VSmith by Lar 28 May 2010. I'm not nearly finished I have evidence of Lar attempting to drive away or being highly critical of several admins. I personally have only criticised Lar's actions with regard to WMC. I have not tried to drive him out of the topic area. Here is a real gem of an editor protecting the admin who will serve him best ATren telling me to move on and shouting that Lar is UNINVOLVED - ATren 27 May 2010, "you've" been the most disruptive and biased admin on that page over the last week, by far. I think you need to take a step back. - ATren jumping in to defend Lar and trying to push me away by saying I was a disruptive and biased admin even though I was not acting as an admin in that situation 29 April 2010, LessHeard vanU warning me away from Lar's talkpage (a warning retracted by Lar himself who hosts open discussion) - LessHeard 10 August 2010 Olap the Ogre (talk) 08:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, this is an activity BOTH sides in this dispute have tried to play, early and often. SirFozzie (talk) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, SirFozzie, but it could be argued have you chosen sides, or the side of a fellow ArbCom, you cut a sentence of policy in half (presumably this half of the sentence of policy, "These processes are not decided through a head count") and then claimed I was wrong in interpreting policy. I have not ever and will not edit climate change articles. I do have an opinion on climate change which I can discuss on my talk page if people like but I have tried to be as neutral as possible, I have never asked for anyone to be sanctioned but have defended Mark Nutley and ScienceApologist (one editor from each side if you will) during this ArbCom case when I felt they were being misrepresented or being too harshly judged, so I think on balance I have succeeded in not "taking sides" despite my views on the subject matter. I commented on NW's deletion of a BLP in part because the one thing that really bothered me about the whole climate change battleground was the BLP violations by numerous editors. I initially did have more sympathy for the sceptical side early in the Arb case mainly because the BLP violations was mostly coming from the other side but then became more neutral as evidence mounted against the sceptical editors. I also had sympathy for the scientific editors in as far as them having to battle people who wanted to use newspapers instead of peer reviewed literature and tried to get this promoted to a guideline to help with these issues, but ended up just thinking all individuals from both sides need to be dealt with according to the evidence against them (and I have not interfered with that process) to fix the topic area and hopefully they can be given a second chance and return at a later date with a calmer perspective.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deindenting is go!) Literaturegeek.. what do you think the following things (IN THIS Section) ? I'd feel more comfortable if NW ceased to perform admin actions in this field. Or Jayen's post, referring to a past proposal that attempted to cast NW as an involved administrator. Again, this is not the proper forum for the discussion of the close. That is DRV. My personal opinion would be to endorse the closure. You disagree. SirFozzie (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that is trying to get NW to leave the topic area at least as an admin, but I did not make those posts and your post was directed towards me or it looked that way.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 08:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously been critical of XfD closures that go against a majority (either way), because it implicitly suggests that the one closing admin can interpret policy better than the other commentators. That said, this has become more or less standard. Wikipedia policy is prescriptive, not descriptive, so while I would not have closed the XfD this way, I think NW acted fully within the envelope of current policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has evaluated deletion discussions before and had my decisions taken to deletion review I would vote to overturn in this case if it came up at deletion review. Olap the Ogre (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A clear candudate for deletion review for sure. Expect other sceptic BLPs to be listed at AfD shortly. Collect (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Proposed Decision page, it seems that after four months of deliberation, arbcomm is simply going to topic-ban everyone involved. This concerns me for several reasons. While I believe that the arbiters are doing what they honestly think is right, I don't think that any of them have enough experience in the non-dysfunctional parts of this topic area to understand the fallout from such a decision. In my opinion, those being banned comprise (not always mutually exculsively) subject-matter experts, disruptive, and/or undisruptive individuals who have simply edited here. Potential fallout from this will be:

• Loss of disruptive indivudals (good)
• Loss of page-building subject-matter experts (bad)
• Loss of users with no real track record of misconduct (what?) This especially will lead to the unwillingness of others (e.g., at least me) to make sure that the pages conform to the middle-of-the-road scientific consensus, for fear that some new user will complain about us, resulting in an instant topic ban (this is the precedent that this case is on the road to set)

The problem is that a blanket topic ban with no obvious criteria for who gets banned causes everyone who cares about staying around this place to flee the area. I therefore am willing to de-watchlist every single climate change page because I don't have the time or energy to deal with an arbitration case that now seems to be destined for anyone who is involved. And I am 100% sure that I will end up trying to edit-war out some totally bogus news article that flies in the face of all scientific consensus if all of these users do get banned and I am left watching these pages.

To sum up: yes, everyone needs to behave properly, and there should be sanctions for those who don't, because this is about putting together human knowledge, which should be a good experience. However, blanket topic-bans with no reason given will cause me at least to stop caring about whether this area is accurate because it will have become a third rail. So to arbcomm: please, provide criteria for the topic-bans that you are issuing, or no one will feel safe enough to edit this area (except for the SPA trolls that pop up like the furry critters in whack-a-mole and don't care if they're smacked... but they might end up running the show). Awickert (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposal to just topic-ban all the problematic editors is very well-advised in this case. The criteria, obviously, is the disruption generated by the editors at issue as evident from the findings. This is not about well-meaning editors losing their tempers once getting an "instant ban", this is about longterm contribution to a disruptive environment by people who, after zillions of enforcement discussions, really should know better.

At some point it is just not worth the while to make fine distinctions between degrees of individual misconduct. As one arbitrator has said, this case essentially arises from the collective inability of several editors to work together productively. As a consequence, it is better to direct them to contribute somewhere else where their content (and ideological?) disagreements won't disrupt the editing environment. The ideal Wikipedia editor should observe WP:NPOV in such a manner that it should not be possible to determine from looking at their edits what opinion, if any, they hold about the subjects they write about. If editors feel that they can't meet this exacting standard, they are better advised to write about stuff that they actually do not have any opinion about, but still find interesting. A topic ban may help the affected editors to do this in this instance.

I'm also not sure that content quality will suffer greatly. I expect the basic science of climate change to be pretty much covered by now. The only thing that may need constant work are the political developments around climate change, and that demands no particular expertise from editors. To avoid recentism, a certain time lag may even help. And discretionary sanctions should help admins deal aggressively with any problematic SPAs that emerge.  Sandstein  11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you are wrong the remedy 3 does involve more than one well meaning editor. That is not to say there are any editors in there who have behaved impeccably but there are definitely well meaning constructive editors included in the blanket ban. I never thought wikipedia would turn into this sort of tough punitive justice place, in fact I thought this was against the ethos of wikipedia. Three strikes and you are out (even if those strikes never amounted to more than stealing a candy bar) that is what arbcom have turned this into. It is not a construtive approach, it may seem big and clever and tough to some but it is destructive, negative, assumes bad faith and makes wikipedia the sort of unpleasant punitive place where people don't wish to be. Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This really is a bit rich. This topic didn't get into the mess it's in all by itself. The atmosphere drives away all but the most determined (or obstinate) editors. This is wholly unWikipedian. On top of which, with a few honourable exceptions, nobody seems prepared to acknowledge that they've contributed to the catastrophe. "It wasn't me. Or my friends and allies." From my point of view, it's all actually rather depressing.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make your solution any better. I acknowledge I have been a bit rude on this page at times. Your solution is topic ban by remedy 3 get rid of them all, that is completely unconstructive. It is along the lines of chop off a few heads and display them on the city walls and let that be a lesson to all sort of solution, damn them if we get it wrong once in a while we will end up with a better wikipedia and they should have thought about the consequences beforehand. Have we come nowhere in the last few centuries? Olap the Ogre (talk) 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other realistic options. Community sanction discussions have been hijacked and gamed incessantly; consensus discussions have been talked to death with varying degrees of bickering and unpleasantness; cooperative editing is largely a thing of the past. What's not to like about topic-bans and re-claiming the topic for the community?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am begining to get the impression that Lar has not been included in remedy 3 because he is getting special treatment due to his position. I hope to see Lar included in remedy 3 for all of the stiring up of the battleground situation he has done having Lar remain involved in any way in the topic at an admin level or even commenting as an observer is not conducive to a new start for this area which remedy 3 now appears to be attempting to do. Personally I would advise the dropping of remedy 3, but if you insist on sticking with it then this is a major oversight. Olap the Ogre (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this section titled Polargeo and was going to comment when the software told me there was no thread? The thread is gone, where to? Was this removed on purpose or was it due to say an edit conflict? I really think this should be discussed and that if possible Lar should comment if he is interested in to doing so which might clear some things up. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this one? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]